White House Dismisses France’s Request to Reclaim the Statue of Liberty: ‘They Should Be Very Grateful’

A growing controversy between the United States and France has erupted after a French politician suggested that the U.S. should return the Statue of Liberty. The White House has swiftly rejected the demand, with press secretary Karoline Leavitt making it clear that such a request is not only unreasonable but also an insult to American sacrifices for France.

The dispute began when French Socialist MEP Raphaël Glucksmann claimed that the U.S. no longer upholds the values that inspired France to gift the Statue of Liberty in 1886. Speaking at a political convention for his Place Publique movement, Glucksmann accused the Trump administration of betraying the principles of liberty, democracy, and scientific freedom.

His fiery remarks sparked international attention, leading to a discussion about whether symbols of historical alliances should remain in place when political ideologies shift.

Fox News correspondent Peter Doocy brought up Glucksmann’s comments during Monday’s White House press briefing, asking whether President Trump was considering returning the statue to France.

"There is now a member of the European Parliament from France who does not think the U.S. represents the values of the Statue of Liberty anymore," Doocy said. "They want the Statue of Liberty back. So, is President Trump going to send the Statue of Liberty back to France?"

Leavitt wasted no time in shutting down the idea.

"Absolutely not," she said, delivering a sharp and nationalistic response. "My advice to that unnamed low-level French politician would be to remind them that it's only because of the United States of America that the French are not speaking German right now. So they should be very grateful to our great country."

Her statement was met with nods of approval from members of the press room, and it quickly circulated online, drawing both support and criticism.

The Statue of Liberty, originally named Liberty Enlightening the World, was a gift from France to the U.S. as a symbol of friendship and shared democratic ideals. Designed by French sculptor Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi and constructed with engineering expertise from Gustave Eiffel, it was meant to celebrate American independence and inspire other nations toward democracy.

For over a century, it has stood as a beacon of hope for immigrants arriving in the United States, representing the promise of freedom and opportunity. However, political shifts have led some to question whether the U.S. still upholds the values it once championed.

Glucksmann’s call for the statue’s return reflects a broader frustration in Europe over the direction of American politics. Critics of the Trump administration argue that its stance on immigration, climate change, and global diplomacy contradicts the ideals of liberty and justice that the statue represents.

Leavitt’s response, invoking World War II, highlights a long-standing sentiment among some Americans: that France and other European nations owe their freedom to U.S. intervention. The argument that America saved France from Nazi occupation is often used to remind European leaders of their historical reliance on the U.S.

This line of reasoning has been employed before, particularly when European leaders criticize American policies. The Trump administration has frequently dismissed such critiques, positioning the U.S. as the ultimate defender of democracy and freedom.

By reminding France of its past reliance on American military strength, Leavitt framed the issue not as one of shared values, but of historical debt.

Leavitt’s remarks have added fuel to an already tense relationship between the U.S. and parts of the European Union. While some Americans praised her blunt response, calling it a necessary defense of national pride, others saw it as dismissive and unnecessarily combative.

In France, Glucksmann’s demand resonated with left-wing politicians who argue that the Trump administration has weakened America’s moral standing on the global stage. French media outlets have reported a mix of amusement and frustration at the White House’s response, with some seeing it as further proof of a widening ideological gap between the two countries.

Legally speaking, France has no authority to reclaim the Statue of Liberty. Once gifted, the statue became the property of the United States, and any attempt to remove it would be met with immense legal and political resistance.

Even if France were to make an official request, it is highly unlikely that the U.S. government—or its people—would ever agree to part with such a deeply ingrained national symbol. For most Americans, the Statue of Liberty is not just a gift from France; it is a cornerstone of the nation’s identity.

However, the debate raises a broader question: should historical monuments remain untouched regardless of how the political landscape evolves? If a country no longer represents the ideals associated with a monument, does it still have the right to keep it?

At its core, this dispute is not truly about physically moving the Statue of Liberty back to France. Rather, it is about what the statue represents in today’s world and whether America still upholds those values.

For Glucksmann and his supporters, calling for the statue’s return is a way of holding the U.S. accountable for what they see as a departure from democratic principles. For Leavitt and the Trump administration, rejecting the demand outright reinforces their belief in America’s role as a global leader, dismissing foreign critiques as irrelevant.

While the Statue of Liberty will undoubtedly remain in New York Harbor, this debate will linger as a reminder of the ideological shifts and tensions shaping the modern world. Whether as a symbol of unity or division, its meaning continues to evolve, just as the world around it does.